18 replies to this topic

[Mr. Cool]

This is what I think should happen with these two guys. Let's settle the argument once and for all with a fight to the death.

If the white supremacist wins we get rid of the Muslims, if the Islamist wins we all convert to Islam. You can't say fairer than that.

[Kate G]

Anyway.

http://www.guardian....s-breivik-hates

Check this out, via Chris on Twitter. Fucking brilliant show of solidarity.

[Dexter Green]

Isn't it just? I remember when Breivik carried out the attacks and the Norwegian PM came out saying the way they could fight back was by being more liberal and open, not by allowing him to force them to give up their rights or liberties for security. Imagine a British PM saying something like that? After 7/7 we lost so many rights and liberties.

[Mr. Cool]

I can't believe Kate G anywayed my post!

Anyway, as funny as it is, it's not really getting him back to any great extent. Everything is still going to plan as far as he's concerned, he's worked the system perfectly.

[Kate G]

Er, I dunno about that.

As he doesn't appear to have a clear ideology (apart from Muslims & Muslim 'enablers' = bad) I don't think his masterplan extended further than fucking shit up. Since we're speculating, I'd posit that's he just fucking batshit.

The Norweigian 'way' has worked - yes, it's a high profile case, but he hasn't really been given that much of a platform because a large amount of the media coverage is actually about how well the country is dealing with it, e.g. this song thing, some Norweigian newspapers refusing to cover the trial, and an option to turn off Brevik related stories on news websites. I'm impressed with how unglamourised the trial is.

Did you ever see that Charlie Brooker Newswipe bit, where he interviewed/showed(?) a criminal psychologist who listed how not to cover a 'bad' trial (of killing spree type)? And then compared that to how the US and UK media cover such events in their respective countries which ends up basically glamourising the criminals, creating a spiral of more and more (mental) people thinking they can do extreme shit and have the whole world know about it afterwards? That was interesting.

Of course singing a song at him isn't going to 'get him back' for killing all those people(!), but it is an extremely powerful show of solidarity, and a sharp contrast to the normal Western way of dealing with terrorists by throwing more hatred back. I'd like to think that diffusing hatred with... love/solidarity? or whatever you want to call it is a better way to do things.

As Chris said, it's funny how we've 'beaten' the terrorists by losing so many rights and liberties...

Edited by Kate G, 26 April 2012 - 04:23 PM.

[phil second time around]

like more and more people these days,I don't buy newspapers,and very rarely watch the news...these people are ???

[Zoë]

UK SUX

[Mr. Cool]

'Beating' the terrorists is a very difficult thing to do. The only way to have stopped Brevik would probably have involved an invasion of his privacy, an infringement of his civil liberties or a disregard of his human rights. Of course after something terrible happens you'll hear people complaining that the authorities have failed to stop it.

I suppose you can't have your cake and eat it and something is always going to have to give.

[Dexter Green]

It depends on what you define as 'beating'. If you mean preventing extremism then you're never going to win, even the most inclusive and tolerant society will have the disaffected and alienated people that will want to disrupt it and attack their fellow humans.

Kate's point of: I'd like to think that diffusing hatred with... love/solidarity? or whatever you want to call it is a better way to do things. Is spot on. There is no other way of doing it, because as Martin Gaye said War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate.

Breivik aimed to disrupt and destroy the tolerant, multi-cultural Norway but their response has beaten him. If he'd done the same thing here, he would have given the Government an excuse to curb further rights and freedoms and he would have got his own way.

When I look at the response of some people to things like that I'm filled with a warmth and hope for the future of the human race, but when I look at the actions of our Government, media, populace etc... I imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.

[chi]

everybody is entitled to the same basic rights, terrorists and murderers as well. that's the only way it can work. it's like these fucktard pro lifers who are standing outside abortion clinics intimidating vulnerable women. as much as i'd like to tear gas the fuck out them, as long as it's a peaceful protest, they have to be allowed to do it.

[Cardiff Gentleman]

Dexter Green, on 27 April 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

It depends on what you define as 'beating'. If you mean preventing extremism then you're never going to win, even the most inclusive and tolerant society will have the disaffected and alienated people that will want to disrupt it and attack their fellow humans.

Kate's point of: I'd like to think that diffusing hatred with... love/solidarity? or whatever you want to call it is a better way to do things. Is spot on. There is no other way of doing it, because as Martin Gaye said War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate.

Breivik aimed to disrupt and destroy the tolerant, multi-cultural Norway but their response has beaten him. If he'd done the same thing here, he would have given the Government an excuse to curb further rights and freedoms and he would have got his own way.

When I look at the response of some people to things like that I'm filled with a warmth and hope for the future of the human race, but when I look at the actions of our Government, media, populace etc... I imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.

From Marvin Gaye to George Orwell - good post and a neat segue

[Dexter Green]

I wonder if Kate G has ever been quoted in such illustrious company.

[Kate G]

If only you'd gotten Morrissey in.

[hail of bullets]

Cardiff Gentleman, on 27 April 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

Dexter Green, on 27 April 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

It depends on what you define as 'beating'. If you mean preventing extremism then you're never going to win, even the most inclusive and tolerant society will have the disaffected and alienated people that will want to disrupt it and attack their fellow humans.

Kate's point of: I'd like to think that diffusing hatred with... love/solidarity? or whatever you want to call it is a better way to do things. Is spot on. There is no other way of doing it, because as Martin Gaye said War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate.

Breivik aimed to disrupt and destroy the tolerant, multi-cultural Norway but their response has beaten him. If he'd done the same thing here, he would have given the Government an excuse to curb further rights and freedoms and he would have got his own way.

When I look at the response of some people to things like that I'm filled with a warmth and hope for the future of the human race, but when I look at the actions of our Government, media, populace etc... I imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever.

From Marvin Gaye to George Orwell - good post and a neat segue

Except he called him Martin Gaye. I honestly thought that was a joke as I don't see how quoting pop song lyrics proves anything.

[Mr. Cool]

Mr. Cool, on 26 April 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

'Beating' the terrorists is a very difficult thing to do. The only way to have stopped Brevik would probably have involved an invasion of his privacy, an infringement of his civil liberties or a disregard of his human rights. Of course after something terrible happens you'll hear people complaining that the authorities have failed to stop it.

I suppose you can't have your cake and eat it and something is always going to have to give.

I get negged for this? Have I got a shot at becoming the new Chest Rockwell?

[Dexter Green]

hail of bullets, on 27 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Except he called him Martin Gaye. I honestly thought that was a joke as I don't see how quoting pop song lyrics proves anything.

Whoops! Early morning typo.

What's wrong with quoting songs? There's wisdom in them there words.

[Mr. Cool]

Sons of bitches! I'm off to join the B9 forum.

[Kate G]

Hahahaha.

[hail of bullets]

Dexter Green, on 27 April 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

hail of bullets, on 27 April 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Except he called him Martin Gaye. I honestly thought that was a joke as I don't see how quoting pop song lyrics proves anything.

Whoops! Early morning typo.

What's wrong with quoting songs? There's wisdom in them there words.

There's nothing wrong with quoting songs in a particular context, but the way you phrased it just seemed like you were using it as evidence of fact, which it clearly isn't. As someone I know to have a very good grasp on thoroughly logical reasoning, it came across as quite clunky. It's not even that I disagree. I obviously don't. I would expect you to give a more in depth backing up of your argument than a cadaver's lyric, that's all.